Re: bindv6only again
On Monday 26 April 2010 17:35:00 Jarek Kamiński wrote:
> 560238 is blocked only by 579033, end of bug report mentions also wine,
> which I've missed. Reports against other packages are already closed. Am
> I missing something else?
Read this mailing list, some packages were mentioned.
> My point was, that applications claiming compatibility with Linux cannot
> assume particular value of bindv6only regardless of RFC or any value
> Debian chooses. I've reported bugs about incompatibility with
> bindv6only=1 before the whole discussion popped up.
That application (which i maintain btw) claims compatibility with posix, not
> We are not incompatible with other Unices, only with few buggy
Being posix compliant is not a bug.
The only reason i applied the patch is because i didn't want the package to be
broken. I still believe the patch didn't fix any bug.